Haunui v The Queen

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI MANA NUI

SC 6/2020
[2020] NZSC 41

BETWEEN	DENNIS HAUNUI Applicant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Court:	William Young, O’Regan and Williams JJ
Counsel:	A J Bailey for Applicant J Mara for Respondent
Judgment:	30 April 2020

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

ALeave to appeal is granted (Haunui v R [2019] NZCA 679).

BThe approved question is whether the Court of Appeal ought to have allowed the applicant’s appeal to that Court.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

In addition to the points raised in the leave submissions, counsel’s submissions should address the conclusion of the Court of Appeal in Wiley v R that the omission of the proviso formerly set out in s 385 of the Crimes Act 1961 from s 232 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 did not point to any change in the approach to appellate review.[1]
[1]Wiley v R [2016] NZCA 28, [2016] 3 NZLR 1 at [42]–[55].

Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Haunui v The Queen was heard by the Supreme Court of New Zealand. The applicant, Dennis Haunui, sought leave to appeal to the Court against a decision made by the Court of Appeal. The central issue in the case was whether the Court of Appeal should have allowed the applicant’s appeal, particularly focusing on the interpretation of changes in legislative provisions related to appellate review in criminal cases. The Court was tasked with determining whether the omission of a proviso from section 385 of the Crimes Act 1961, when it was re-enacted in section 232 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011, indicated a change in the approach to appellate review.

The Court considered the reasoning of the Court of Appeal in the case of Wiley v R, which held that the omission of the proviso did not signify any change in the approach to appellate review. The Supreme Court examined the legislative history and the intent behind the omission, as well as the implications for the applicant's case. The Court acknowledged the importance of ensuring that the principles of appellate review were applied consistently and fairly, taking into account the legislative intent and context. The Court ultimately decided to grant leave to appeal, finding that the question of whether the Court of Appeal should have allowed the appeal was sufficiently arguable and important to warrant further examination at the Supreme Court level.

The Supreme Court's decision to grant leave to appeal indicates a recognition of the complexity and significance of the legal issues involved. The Court highlighted the need for a thorough review of the Court of Appeal's decision in light of the legislative changes and their implications for the applicant’s case. This decision paves the way for a detailed examination of the principles of appellate review and the interpretation of legislative provisions, ensuring that the highest court in New Zealand can provide clarity and guidance on these critical issues.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established